MOTOR LICENSES

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 195, 19 May 1928, Page 10

MOTOR LICENSES

WHAT IS “ANNUALLY”?

QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION

Whether the Motor Vehicles Act. 1924. and its amendments, are capable of more than one interpretation, formed the subject of a lengthy legal argument in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when S. Baker was charged with using au unlicensed car. Messrs. T. A. Coltrnan and J. A. McGrath. J.P.'s. were on the bench. Mr. J. Meltzer appeared for defendant. It was contended by Mr. Meltzer that the point raised by Mr. J. Luxford. S.M., nt Hamilton, was analogous to that m this case with the difference that (he Hamilton case referred to drivers’ licenses, and the present case to licenses to use motor vehicles. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924, provided that no person should knowingly use a motor vehicle unless a license to use such vehicle had been issued and remained in force. Section 10 provided that it was the duty of every person owning a motor vehicle to procure a license annually, and subsection 3 of that section, before it was repealed, provided that every such license should terminate on the. next succeeding thirty-first day of March. Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1927. continued Mr. Meltzer, laid it down that any license issued after March 31, 1928, should remain in force until May 31, 1929. In order to bring the 1924 Act into line, the. 1927 Act repealed sub-section 3 of section 10 of the 1924 Act. Section 10 of the main Act now read: "It shall be the duty of every person being the owner of a motor vehicle to procure annually from a deputy-regis-trar a license to use such motor vehicle. Mr. Meltzer said that he did not contend that licenses were therefore permanently valid, but he did submit that since it was previously provided by subsection 3 of section 10 of the 1924 Act that those licenses should expire on March 31. and since that had now been repealed there was no obligation on the part of motorists to take out licenses for their ears unless under express conditions laid down in sub-section I—-in other words, annually. He contended that there were two possible interpretations of the Act as it stood. Suppose, he said, that a man took out a license on May 14, 1927, then under the Act (before that particular section was repealed) the license would' have expired on March 31, 1928. That section, however, had been repealed, and counsel submitted that either that license held good until May 14, 1928 (a period of one year), and there was no obligation to take out another license until May 14, 1929, or, assuming that the license lasted only up to March 31, 1928, there was no obligation on the motorist to take out another license until March 31, 1929. In other words, after March 31, 1928, the motorist would have twelve months to comply with the law. Mr. Meltzer added that the Act specified no date on which licenses should be taken In the opinion of Senior-Sergeant Scott the 1927-28 licenses expired on March 31. 1928, and that the law under which they were issued applied only to that date. This, he said, was upheld by section 21 of the Acts Interpretation Act, Mr. Meltzer said that be could not see where the section in question affected his argument, and pointed out that the dictionary definition of the word “annually” meant “one in every year.” He agreed that the validity of the issue of the licenses had not been affected. To Mr. McGrath he stated that there was not any regulation under either Act which provided that motorists should take out licenses on a certain date. He also stated that he knew of no section in either Act authorising the City Council to fix the date. In conclusion, Mr. Meltzer said that the question involved was one of very great importance, as the interpretation of the Act affected motorists all over the Dominion. The Bench decided to convict the defendant and to impose a fine of 10s. Security for appeal was fixed-at £lO. Asked by Mr. Meltzer for reasons for the decision. Mr. McGrath said that the Bench preferred not to give any.